Week 8 (23rd - 29th December 2013) - Eldritch Horror: Playing Solo on the Flute of the Outer Gods

Yes, I know - possibly one of the crappest inneundos so far - it was either that or something about polishing the lamp of Alhazred. In any case, this week's offering is another new solitaire outing: Fantasy Flight Games' Eldritch Horror. I picked this up about three weeks back, and have only just had the opportunity to play it.

I am a massive Lovecraft fan, such that my obsession also extends (occasionally) into my professional life. Over the years, I have tended to purchase virtually anything and everything gaming-related with a Lovecraft theme. In recent years, I've been much more cautious in this regard, as slapping a Lovecraft/Cthulhu theme on stuff does not itself a great game make. Being at the forefront of Lovecraftian boardgaming  - producing the reboot of Richard Launius' Arkham Horror (and its many expansion) - Fantasy Flight Games can usually be trusted in this regard. Indeed, for a time Arkham Horror which seemed to be FFG's signature product and, I believe, one of the company's biggest sellers. Despite it being a great game, like Lovecraft's Great Old Ones, Arkham Horror has transfigured into something of a bloated monstrosity. Whilst I love the game both in solitaire and co-op mode, the older I get, the more loath I am to play it given the time it usually eats up (about 5-6 hours last time it hit my table). Indeed, whilst FFG are still reprinting the AH, they seem to have focused their energy on expanding their stable of Lovecraft games with new offerings rather than additional product for AH (which hasn't seen a new expansion for a couple of years). The most recent edition to this stable being of course Eldritch Horror: a wonderfully streamlined and globe-trotting spin on the older game, and whose core mechanics are similar to Arkham Horror.

In Eldritch Horror, players take the role of investigators, whose job it is to halt the return of one of the Ancient Ones (such as Azathoth, Cthulhu or Yog-Sothoth) whilst retaining life and sanity in the process. Eldritch Horror differs somewhat from AH in that players have to solve three mystery cards to defeat the Ancient One threat, rather than closing gates to other worlds (although this remains a helpful strategy - see below). As per AH, EH also sports a doom track, which various events (usually the opening of gateways to various horrible dimensions) will push forward from turn to turn. Should the doom track reach zero, the Ancient One awakens and usually bad things happen - most likely resulting in the players loosing. Various other mechanisms (usually driven by cards that are revealed throughout the game) can also cause the players to lose if they do not fulfil certain objectives within a given timeframe. In the game I played, a card was revealed which forced my characters to stop a Tcho-Tcho cult within a certain number of terms or otherwise I would lose. This, of course, causes interruptions to players seeking to solve the mystery cards before the doom track reaches its end.

If Arkham Horror tries to represent in boardgame terms a typical Call of Cthulhu rpg scenario, Eldritch Horror seeks to replicate a typical world-spanning CoC campaign - but does it in a much more streamlined manner than its precursor.

Eldritch Horror set up in preparation for my first game.

The two investigators I chose for my first game: Mark Harrigan and Leo Anderson: manly men doing manly things...

 

Pimping out my game using FFG dice (including Blessed and Cursed dice - not shown here) and Litko stands for gates and monsters. I also have an FFG dice bag (see the photo above) with big green tentacles on the front from which monster counters are randomly drawn. Oh, and a dice cup with a supposed 'Elder Sign' emblazoned on it as per the dice bag shown here: uncanonically, a star, not a tree...

 

For goodness sake, people, this is what an Elder Sign looks like!

Rather than provide a detailed review of gameplay, I will instead summarise (probably already evident from the above) what I think makes this the better game comparable to the otherwise excellent Arkham Horror. Firstly, it has a slightly smaller footprint and set up time. Whilst the board is of a good size and, as per usual for FFG, the gaming components are of the highest quality, I can fit this on the desk in my study (which I can't with AH). Gameplay is far more streamlined: there are fewer phases/stages to go through, such that each turn runs fairly quickly and fluidly. As a consequence, the game takes significantly less time to play.  Notably, the processes of closing open gateways (one of the ways of stopping the doom track from advancing) only takes a single turn - it could take up to three turns in AH. My first play - using two investigators - lasted two hours, including set up time: a massive difference in comparison to AH. Bearing in mind, this first game was also a learning game, so I would anticipate this taking maybe 90 minutes on average (although more players/investigators will of course expand the typical length of a game). Like AH, EH also scales to the number of investigators used. Being fully co-operative, it also works extremely well as a solitaire game. Whilst I lost my first game, it was quite close - and this to me is the mark of a good solitaire or co-operative - as per my comments about the LotR card game, if the game system likes to beat you with a heavy stick very early on, it tends to be a frustrating and not terribly enjoyable experience. Like AH, EH is dripping with theme and colour, and does replicate the feel of a desperate race against time in order to stop the end of the world - as per the previous point, losing the game regularly is not a issue for me as long as it 'feels' winnable and that the journey to the endpoint was narratively immersive (which for me, EH is). The rules are also somewhat shorter and slightly better organised that those of AH.

Given that Arkham Horror has not seen much love in recent years, my suspicion is that Eldritch Horror may emerge as AH's 'replacement' - at least until FFG get around to doing a new (and hopefully more streamlined) version of the older game. Overall, this is highly recommended - especially if you are a Lovecraft fan. On the Gaming Self-Abuse Scale (tm), this scores a whopping 9/10.

Week 7 (16th - 22nd December 2013) - The Lord of the Rings Card Game: One-Handed Tossing of the Hairy Dwarf

Well, whatever else did you think this post's title was referring to?

 

 

In my last post I promised that entries for the ensuing month would focus on solitaire games from my collection as yet unplayed. However, with the recent release of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, I've decided to take a more thematic approach to this week's game (although it is one I've played solitaire previously): The Lord of the Rings Card Game from Fantasy Flight Games.

The LotR Card Game is one of FFG's 'Living Card Games' - a response to the crash of the CCG market in lieu of the disastrous rush of many game companies to cash-in the success of Magic: The Gathering (which almost lead to the demise of Chaosium, whose excellent CCG Mythos I shall be posting about at a later date). The LCG model involves producing card games via an introductory box with fixed of cards (no randomisation), and allowing players to expand on this through regular releases of fixed expansion decks, meaning that competitive players aren't spending huge sums of cash ripping open randomised booster packs in search of rare cards.

 

Whilst The LotR Card Game is no stranger to my table, this week games have included a previously unplayed expansion: The Hobbit: Under Hill and Over Hill.

 

Whilst the core game explores the build up to the War of the Ring (being set twelve years prior to the events of The Lord of the Rings), The Hobbit: Under Hill and Over Hill is the first of a set of 'saga' additions to the game that will eventually enable you to play your way through the entirety of epic story arc of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.

 

The LotR Card Game is designed for both solitaire or collaborative play, pitting players against scenarios consisting of a number of stages (usually three), each represented by a card. Scenario cards also define the contents of the encounter deck, consisting of a number of challenges and enemies players must overcome  in pursuit of the scenario's objectives. To do so, each player chooses a number of heroes (again, each represented by a card), portraying many of the well-loved figures from Middle Earth (in The Hobbit expansion, these include Bilbo Baggins and Thorin Oakenshield). Heroes have distinctive characteristics and abilities which aid players in fulfilling scenario conditions and thus winning the game. Each player also constructs a deck of around 50 cards, from which they draw a hand of 6 at the start of the game, gaining an additional draw each turn. These cards can be played at various points to garner allies, equipment and other benefits which will facilitate players/heroes success. Cards are paid for using resource tokens acquired by heroes throughout the game (also usually at the start of each turn). Heroes and cards have an associated trait such as lore, tactics or spirit, such that cards can only be paid for using resources from a hero with a corresponding trait. This, in turn, effects deck-building, in that choosing heroes with the same trait makes it easier to pay for cards, but limits the kind of cards that can be included in the deck.

 

The LotR Card Game with Hobbit expansion set up for first play

As per most solitaire or collaborative games, The LotR Card Game utilises a variation of the 'doom track' mechanic. In The LotR Card Game, this is the Threat Tracker, represented by a nifty cardboard dial. The Tracker is initially set according to the value of the heroes chosen. The more powerful the hero, the higher his or her cost, and the higher the Threat Tracker is set. If at any point the Threat Tracker reaches a Threat Level of 50, the game ends and the player(s) lose.

 

Achieving scenario objectives often involves placing a number of progress tokens on the card marking the current scenario stage. When these equal or exceed the quest number of the card, that stage of the scenario is completed and the players move to the next stage. Acquisition of progress tokens is via questing. This involves exhausting a number of heroes, then revealing cards from the scenario encounter deck. If the combined willpower of the exhausted heroes is greater than the threat level of revealed encounter cards (which remain in what is called the 'staging area' from turn to turn, so their combined threat level regularly increases), then players have quested successfully, and place a number of progress tokens on the current scenario equal to difference between the heroes willpower and the threat level of revealed cards. If the heroes' willpower is lower than the combined threat of revealed cards, then the Threat Tracker is increased by the difference. Following this, if any monsters have been revealed, they may have the opportunity to attack and do damage (and possibly kill) the heroes. However, only heroes who are not exhausted can defend against and counterattack monsters. The game is, therefore, all about effective resource management - of when to devote heroes to questing, and when to leave heroes free to deal with various beasties (orcs, trolls, goblins, giant spiders and the like).

The problem is that the game is so damn difficult to beat (or at least some of the scenarios are). During earlier plays (without The Hobbit expansion), I found that a typical scenario took about 8 plays to beat, with each new play requiring a refining of the player deck and choice of heroes. In this respect, I've also found The LotR Card Game to be too 'gamey' - or at least very much a 'gamer's game' with an emphasis on number-crunching, deck-building strategy and card synergy rather than theme. My experience so far with The Hobbit expansion (8 plays this week) reinforces this, in that it doesn't seem to play very well using thematic deck/set of heroes - indeed, looking on Boardgamegeek, received wisdom seems to be that using Gimli (a hero from the game's core set) - who of course does not appear in the narrative of The Hobbit, even though his old dad Gloin does - is one of the best ways to beat the first scenario (in which Bilbo, Thorin and company famously have to deal with a trio of hungry trolls).  After 8 plays, I've not come anywhere near beating this scenario using the themed cards and heroes included in this expansion, usually loosing the game by turn 3 (I've found that a typical scenario usually lasts about 10-12 turns or longer). It's not that I mind a game being difficult, or being beaten more times than I win; rather - and to use a somewhat tired analogy  -  for me it is about the journey and not the destination: if a game is dripping with theme and narrative, and seems reasonably well-balanced such that I have at least a chance of winning every 5 plays or so, then all is well and good. But frankly, with so many games ending so abruptly, I've become somewhat disillusioned with The Hobbit expansion. This is a shame, as I was really excited about beginning what I anticipated as being an epic journey through the entirety of the events of War of the Ring (and thus flinging more of my hard-earned cash FFG's way); now I'm on the cusp of giving up. FFG themselves have recognised this as a problem, subsequently releasing a set of optional rules to facilitate themed play - rules which I did in fact institute for all of this week's games, but seemingly to no effect.

 

That said, previous plays have been enjoyable albeit difficult, so it is likely that I will give this another go. The cards themselves are absolutely beautiful, and as per usual with FFG, production values are of the very highest - all of which draws me to the game. However, the frustrating nature of game play - at least with the first Hobbit expansion (there is one other which completes the story) does mean that, on the Gaming Self-Abuse Scale (tm), this currently scores a 6/10.

Week 6 (9th - 15th December 2013): Pandemic.

This week's solitaire outing is yet another of Z-Man Games' offerings, Pandemic. In truth, I had intended on giving the new Eldritch Horror a spin but, with the usual pre-Xmas rush as work winds down, I found myself pushed for time and so opted for a game that a) I was familiar with and b) had a short enough play time and could fit into my rather hectic schedule.

Game set-up at the start of play

Sadly, this also means I don't have time to review the game in detail subsequent to my playing. In brief Pandemic is a co-operative/solitaire game in which the players are battling to cure four diseases before they reach epidemic levels, bringing about an apocalyptic end of things if too many outbreaks occur. Overall, I've found this game quite a tough cookie to crack - needless to say, during tonight's game I lost spectacularly (although I had managed to find the cure to one disease, and was close to curing another before the end). Whilst I don't quite have the time to go into the details of gameplay, Pandemic is very quick and easy to pick up, and involves a number of very clever (but simple) mechanics which drive the game's AI. The great thing about this game is the level of tension is manages to ratchet up as the players race against time to save the world, which works extremely well in terms of Pandemic's theme. This is also a game which can be played quite easily multiple times in an evening (an average game takes about 45 minutes - 1 hour), and works well as a filler between longer games.

On the Gaming Self-Abuse Scale (tm), this one scores 8/10.

Apologies for the brevity of this post, but as I have some time off over the next few weeks, expect longer and more detailed posts during the coming month, where I will be turning my attention to a number of as-yet-unplayed games.

Week 5 (2nd - 8th December 2013): Yggdrasil - 'In The Halls of Valhalla, Where the Brave May Live...Forever!'

Vikings and shit.

Now we're talking.

Yggdrasil by Z-Man games is a relatively light solitaire/co-operative Euro-style game which, like the previous offering, is quick and easy to learn (about 8 pages of rules).

Game set-up is relatively quick (about 5 minutes), and the production values are extremely high - the board is a beautifully rendered, and the components are generally of very high quality:

Yggdrasil set up and ready to play - the four coloured bags contain counters which are drawn at various points in the game.

This has been sat on my shelf for over a year since I splashed out on it, and until now has remained unplayed. So time to crack one out (a game, that is) over its lush board. In the game, players take on the role of one of the Nordic gods (Odin, Thor, Freya, etc.) and aim to forestall Ragnarok by preventing their enemies from entering the hallowed realm of Asgard. Each of the gods provides a unique ability or benefit to game play. On this occasion I chose Thor, whose ability is to give a +1 bonus to combat in the game (this seemed like a significant benefit, as combat is one of the principle means of preventing enemies from breaching Asgard's defences):

At the start of each player's turn, the top card of the enemy deck of is revealed: each of these holds the image of one of Asgard's enemies: the dragon Nidhogg, the Fire Giant Surt, the sea-serpent Jormungand, the monstrous wolf Fenrir, the God Loki, and Hel (Loki's daughter); once revealed, the depicted enemy's counter is advanced along the Asgrad track towards Valhalla and Odin's stead. When activated, each enemy also produces an effect which impinges upon players' opportunities for winning the game. Loki, for example, reveals the top card of the Giant deck, which usually limits the kinds of actions players can take, or makes it harder to beat enemies in combat; Fenrir causes the current player to use up one or more of their actions; Jormungand impedes players from calling forth the souls of dead Viking warriors to take up arms against Asgard's enemies.

The current player then takes three actions from a range of nine available (mirroring the nine worlds of Norse mythology as arrayed upon the tree Yggdrasil), each of which can be helpful in limiting the advancement of Asgard's enemies into Valhalla. However, on a given player's term, no action can be taken more than once. Actions include acquiring various artefacts helpful in defeating enemies, acquiring a warband of Viking warriors (useful for the same), or engaging directly in combat with either any revealed Giants (thus ending their effects if player's win the combat) or one of the enemies of Asgard (which forces said enemy to move back one space, effectively giving the players more breathing space in face of the relentless onslaught of the game).

A unique six sided dice is also included in the game, with each side either blank or depicting an icon of a crossed sword and hammer on a coloured background. The dice has multiple uses in the game. In combat, the number of icons rolled by the player adds to his or her combat total. This total can be increased by returning Viking warriors to the world of the dead prior to rolling. These warriors are acquired by drawing a number of tokens from one of four coloured bags, each containing a different mix of Viking and Fire Giant tokens. Various enemy effects cause Vikings to be removed from bags, or Fire Giants to be added according to the corresponding colour of the icon rolled on the dice.

The game is lost if 5 enemies make it beyond the walls of Asgard (three spaces along the Asgard track), or if 3 enemies make it beyond the door of Valhalla (five spaces along), or one enemy make;s it into Odin's stead (the eighth and final space). Player's win if they can prevent any of the above after all of the cards in the enemy deck have been revealed.

Overall, I found Yggdrasil to be fast and fun. Whilst randomness has a role to play in the game, player choices are relatively open, allowing for a range of specific strategies to be deployed. Despite being a Eurogame, Yggdrasil did feel remarkably thematic with regard to its how its mechanic worked to reinforce the feel of its subject matter: playing Thor, I was eventually defeated (appropriately, for the Marvel fans out there) by Loki, whose rapid advancement along the Asgard track during the end of the game meant that a large number of Giants ended up being revealed, each of whose abilities seriously limited the scope of my actions. Whilst I lost the game, it did feel quite close - given a few more turns, I might have prevailed. Had the Hulk been around, things may have turned out differently:

Score on the Gaming Self-Abuse Scale (tm): 8/10. This is a lovely looking game, which can be played fairly quickly (my solitaire outing took about 90 minutes from set up to finish), and the rules are generally clear and concise. Strategic options mean that the game has good replay value.

Week 4 (25th November to 1st December 2013) - Onirim (what, no innuendo?)

Sadly, real life has intervened this week such that my planned solitaire game of Yggdrasil did not reach its ludic climax, but collapsed instead into a state of flaccid detumescence. Also an update on last week's game - in retrospect, it seems that I was playing the Doctor Who Solitaire Story Game wrong in one respect: I should have been rolling for an encounter at the end of each round, which would have significantly raised my chances of revealing an enemy before the end of turn 12.

Fortunately, being somewhat prescient to the possibility of a complete fuck-up on the gaming front, I have factored in a number of back-up plans whereby, in dire emergency, I can implement a game of something quick and easy to fill the gap (as it were). However, on this occasion the urgency of the situation was such that I had neither the time nor inclination to arrive at a suitable game-related onanist innuendo as this week's sub-title...

So with only a few hours to spare before the end week's end, I managed to knock out a few hands of Onirim by Z-Man Games. This is a solitaire/collaborative card game based on the conceit that you are trapped in some kind of dream labyrinth, and need to wend your way through the oneiric maze whilst acquiring keys to 8 doorways that will allow you to escape.

Onirim consists of a deck of 76 cards made up of 6 variants: 4 different location cards each marked with one of three symbols (sun, moon or key) and keyed to a particular colour; doorway cards; and nightmare cards. In order to win Onirim, you must acquire 8 doorway cards from the deck before the final card is drawn. You start with a hand of five cards, and have to draw up to this amount at the end of each turn. At the start of your turn, you can play a location card which can be of any colour, but must display a symbol different to the previous card played. If you are able to play three cards of the same colour consecutively, you can search the game deck and acquire a doorway of that same colour. If you ever draw a doorway and you have a card of the same colour with a key symbol in your hand, you can discard the key card to acquire that doorway (otherwise place it in a 'limbo' pile, after which it is reshuffled into the deck at the end of each turn). If you draw a Nightmare card, various bad things can happen, such as placing an acquired doorway into the limbo pile, discarding a card with a key symbol from your hand, or discarding a number of cards from the top of the deck (thus cycling through the deck more quickly). The game is incredibly quick to pick up (I learnt the rules in less than 5 minutes), but is quite challenging. That said, Onirim seems fairly reliant on random factors, such that opportunities for player strategy can be somewhat limited.

Top to bottom from Left to Right: the game box, a nightmare card and one each of the coloured locations (I forgot to include an example of a doorway card).

I terms of production values, the cards are illustrated in an interesting manner (although they do have a somewhat childish quality to the design aesthetic which may not be to everyone's taste), but in limited variation (there are only 6 different card designs). On the plus side, Onirim does play very quickly (a solitaire game takes about 20 minutes), and is quite addictive. It also has a very small footprint, so is ideal as a travel game.

For me, the initial appeal of the game (outside of its solitaire playability) was that it seemed to be about cats in a dreamworld (well, the cover illustration looks like a black cat to me - though it is in fact a Nightmare from the in-game world). As a big Lovecraft fan, this struck me as having a certain resonance with some of HPL's 'Dreamlands' stories. Sadly, this is not quite the case, though I do enjoy the game enough to have considered producing, via Artscow,  my own thematic variant based on The Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath.

On the Gaming Self-Abuse scale (tm), this scores a 6.5. Overall, a fast and fun game, but lacking in depth and with some visual/aesthetic limitations.

Next up: Yggdrasil (hopefully!).

Week 3 (18th to 24th November 2013) - Beating About the Bush: The Doctor Who Solitaire Story Game

Bonnie Langford. NOOOOOOOOO!

As per my last post, I decided to have a crack at the Doctor Who Solitaire Story Game this week in honour of the the Doctor's 50th anniversary. The game comes with numerous era-specific expansions, and given that my favourite Doctor is the Seventh (Sylvester McCoy), I decided to play with this expansion. The Seventh is, perhaps, one of the more complicated of the Doctor's regenerations. The first season of Seventh Doctor stories played on McCoy's comedic roots, and called upon a number of well-known stars from the UK variety scene who were completely incongruent with regard to the feel and image of Who : Ken Dodd for instance, and of course Bonnie Langford as the Doctor's companion. At this point, Who had truly lost its way. However, during the second season of McCoy's tenure, something remarkable happened. Langford was ditched, the explosives-obsessed Dorothy McShane - better know as Ace (and played by Sophie Aldred)  - was introduced as a new companion:

As was the infamous Cartmel masterplan. The latter radically and darkly re-envisioned the mythology of Who (in ways which are still impacting on the current reboot). McCoy shifted from being a clownish prankster to a manipulative master planner who was always one step ahead of his antagonists, and seemingly all too willing to sacrifice his companions as pawns in a complex game of cosmic chess.

Here the juxtaposition of McCoy's earlier slapstick performance in the previous season contrasted brilliantly with this darker, more sinister re-envisioning of the Doctor.

So, as you can imagine my disappointment when, after beginning my first game of the DWSSG playing the Seventh Doctor, I ended up with Melanie Bush as my companion...

In any case, the DWSSG takes the classic rpg-lite choose-your-own-adventure format, develops it, and throws Doctor Who into the mix. In theory this sounds like a wining combination. However, my first encounter with the game proved otherwise.

In the game, you take the role of the Doctor (your characteristics and companions depend on which incarnation you use). You then have 12 turns to identify your enemy, reveal their plot, and defeat them. Of course, a whole range of classic Whovian monsters come in to play as potential antagonists, and typically thematic Whovian plots, locations and situations are also likely to arise as a consequence of the choices (or andom die rolls) you make. As the Doctor, each turn you are allowed to take one of a number of actions - although the choice of actions may be limited by what you have already achieved in previous turns. On taking an action, you role either 1D6 or 2D6 to resolve it - this will often direct you to another paragraph in one of the various game books which, in turn, may lead to additional (also randomly determined) options. Two problems emerged early on in the game with this process: firstly, you have to make use of a minimum of four different gamebooks during your adventure - not a massive issue, but it can be quite time-consuming and take you out of the moment if you have to stop and think which book you need to turn to. Secondly, on a given turn, there is a significant likelihood that the only action allowed to you is exploration (particularly early in the game). The problem here is that the die-roll bell curve (2D6) relating to exploration means that there is a significant chance (a roll of 6 or 7) that you will achieve the result of 'nothing', meaning that you have wasted one of your 12 turns. In the game I played, I ended up rolling a 'nothing result' six times during the game, which vastly limited the possibility of successfully completing my mission. On two other occasions when I was able to undertake different kinds of actions, I still ended up rolling 'nothing happens' results. So, for the better part of the game...nothing happened. In addition, my companion Melanie Bush (albeit in classic Whovian style) kept getting in trouble so that the Seventh Doctor had to resecue her, which wasted more of my time and ultimately led me to losing the game. Stupid Bush.

Even so, I did have the sense that this game offers the potential to mirror effectively the narrative feel of a typical episode of Doctor Who. It also has a very interesting and open-ended solitaire engine. Given that narrative immersion is my principal interest where solo gaming is concerned - and being a huge Who fan  -  I'm willing to give this one another go, even if initial experiences of gameplay were not particularly engaging.

Gaming Self-Abuse Scale (tm): 5/10 - but I shall be revisiting this, as I think that there is greater depth to this game, and suspect that I have ended up experiencing a particularly unfortunate first play session.

Next up: I will be stroking the haft of my mighty axe in anticipation of confronting Z-Man Games' Yggdrasil...

Sonic Screwdriver Firmly in Hand.

Well, the next game up on the Gaming Onanist had to be - could only be - something related to Doctor Who's fast approaching 50th anniversary. In anticipation of this momentous event, I present for your delectation the Doctor Who Solitaire Story Game:

This is a print and play game freely available at boardgamegeek. As a Who fan, this has been on my list of games to play for sometime, so what better opportunity. The only problem now being when I'm going to get around to thumbing this thick ream of Whovian goodness - probably not until Saturday or Sunday - but this will still be within my weekly deadline (even if the session report/game overview ends up being posted a little later...).

Week 2 (11th - 17th November 2013) - Pathfinder Adventure Card Game: Tool up with your +1 wand of smiting.

The Pathfinder Adventure Card Game attempts to simulate an rpg-lite experience of killing monsters and taking their stuff within the world of Golarion, the setting for Paizo publishing's hugely successful pen-and-paper rpg named, err, Pathfinder.

 

 As an rpg, Pathfinder has been incredibly successful, if industry sources are to be believed, now eclipsing sales of the daddy of rpgs, Dungeons & Dragons (though if you were being pedantic, you could call this claim into question,  given that Pathfinder is a rebranding of an earlier iteration of D&D). Pathfinder's success has partially built on the fact of Wizards of the Coast - an offshoot of Hasbro who currently have the D&D IP - having dropped the ball somewhat with their recent (4th) edition of the game. Indeed, WotC seem to have fallen into the skewed mentality of their predecessor (TSR) by assuming that anything with the D&D brand is an instant sell. As a consequence - and in what some consider to be a cynical cash-grab - WotC appeared to abandon support of (the highly successful) 3rd edition of D&D (upon which Pathfinder is based), believing that existing players would do likewise and slavishly buy into a 4th edition of the game. In addition, WotC radically reformulated the system with a view to reflecting the mechanics and playstyle of MMORPGs (World of Warcraft in particular), presumably with a view to attracting that audience. To consolidate this attempt at forcibly getting players to shift to the new addition, WotC suddenly withdrew from sale of all their pdfs of previous (as well as 4th) edition rulebooks, scenarios and supplements. The inference here being that if people wanted to play D&D, the would only be allowed to play 4th Edition D&D and no other. At this point, enter Paizo, who published an updated and rebranded 3rd edition ruleset under the Open Game License that WotC created in 2000 (which allows publishers to make use the D&D ruleset in their publications), and the rest, as they say, is history.

Whilst I don't actually play the Pathfinder rpg (or at least haven't had the opportunity to do so yet), it is a game whose setting and background intrigues me: in part because it incorporates something of an old school sword and sorcery feel , and because the Pathfinder content creators appear to be massive fans of H.P. Lovecraft, incorporating many elements of his universe into the world of Golarion. As a consequence, Lovecraftian themes and beasties are not an uncommon sight in Pathfinder setting books and scenarios - indeed, PCs get the opportunity to visit the dread Plateau of Leng in one of the the recent Pathfinder campaigns/adventure paths. Readers of one of my other blogs will know, I am a hugh HPL fan. Thus I am somewhat endeared to the Pathfinder world.

The cover of volume 4 of the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary - anything look familiar here?

As an aside, what is it about the Tolkeinesque cod-medievalism that permeates so much of the rpg scene? This is something of a major gripe for me, especially when I hear roleplayers declaiming how creative they are. Why is it, then, that in many gaming fantasy settings we find exactly the same tropes (elves, dwarves, halflings, orcs and elves in an early mediieval-styled setting), and consistently depolyed in exactly the same way? Despite its more S&S stylings, Pathfinder is equally guilty of this. In this respect, the 'creativity' of the rpg scene has, to some extent, been subsumed into a culture industry where what is being presented as new and innovatiove is really the same old same old. Anything that bucks the trend tends to end up in obscurity: M.A.R. Barker's Tekumel, for example and, to a lesser extent, Greg Stafford's Glorantha.  That said, I do absolutely and unconditionally love the Warhammer World in both its fantasy and sci-fi iterations (elves, orcs and dwarves in spaaace! Except we don't talk about the dwarves anymore), so perhaps I shouldn't complain too much...

In any case, onto the Pathfinder Adventure Card game proper. This attempts to replicate in card game format the first published Pathfinder rpg campaign (or adventure path), Rise of the Rune Lords. It is also a fully co-operative game ideal for solitaire shennanigans. The basic premise of the game is fairly straightforward: players undertake a number of scenarios, during which they explore various locations (each represented by a card along with a corresponding deck of randomly determined location cards) with a view to locating the villain of the piece and taking him or her down. Whilst doing so, they will encounter various traps, pitfalls and monsters, as well as having the opportunity to acquire various items and spells and, in proper D&D fashion, level-up to become unbeatable combat monsters in the process.

Each player's character is represented by a card which is effectively their character sheet, detailing various abilities and special powers. Each of these is allocated a die type (from d4 to d12) along with various bonuses, which forms the basis for the game's core mechanic (see below). Each character also has a deck of 15 cards from which they draw each turn. These contain weapons, armour, spells, blessings, allies and items, each of which has the potential to help the character in some way. The construction of each deck is dependent on character class - so a fighter will have more weapon cards in their deck, whilst a wizard will have more spells. As with many other co-operative/solitaire games, Pathfinder has a timing mechanism against which the players are pitched. This consists of a deck of 30 cards, one of which is flipped at the start of each player's turn. If the deck is exhausted before the players have fulfilled the goal of a given scenario, they collectively lose the game.

 

Setup of  a Game of Pathfinder - pinched from Boardgamegeek as my attempts at taking photos proved to be crap...

During their turn, a player can (amongst other things) move their character to a new location, explore a location, discard cards, and refresh their hand. Each scenario is made up of a number of locations, scaled to the number of characters in play (using two characters means you usually have 4 locations in play), and each location has its own dedicated (and randomly determined) location deck. Exploration actions are at the heart of the game, and involve revealing the top card of the location deck at which your character is currently placed,  and resolving the card effect. Cards are either banes or boons. Boons are items which players can add to their hand; banes are monsters and traps which characters have to overcome. When a character encounters a monster or item, they roll the dice linked to an ability relevant to the encounter (so for example, if you are fighting a monster, you may end up rolling the die type associated with your strength), add bonuses and play cards from their hand (which may add additional bonuses or allow them to roll more dice). If the total of their die roll equals or beats a specified number on the card of the monster or item they are encountering, they win the encounter (i.e. beat the monster, or acquire the item). If they fail, items are returned to the game box, and monsters deal damage equal to the difference between the player's roll and the monster's combat number, forcing them to discard that number of cards from their hand (so, if a character is fighting a monster with a combat strength of 10, and rolls a 6, he or she will need to discard 4 cards from their hand). This is where hand size comes into play. Different characters have different had sizes, such that a fighter has a hand size of 4, and a sorcerer has a hand size of 6. A larger hand size means having more cards to draw upon during actions, but it also means that there is a greater potential for taking damage (a character with only 2 cards in hand who takes 6 damage from a monster only loses what they have in their hand, so the larger the hand size the potential of taking more damage).At the end of your turn, you must draw cards from your deck equal to your hand size. Without going into a detailed analysis of the mechanics, what this means is that the lower your hand size, the slower you are to cycle through your deck. This is important, because at any time you are required to draw a card from your deck and have no cards remaining, your character is killed and is out of the scenario. So, for example, fighters who are generally able to withstand greater combat damage than, say, a wizard, will have a relatively small hand size reflecting the greater difficulty to kill them.  Playing cards from your had also potentially depletes your deck, as you are sometimes required to discard cards in order to trigger their effects. Some cards only require that you reveal them to take effect, after which they return to your hand, whilst others others are recharged, meaning they go to the bottom of your deck, potentially being made available for reuse later on in the game. A note of warning, though: I have been working through the entire Rise of the Runelords campaign that comprises the core of this game using two characters:

 

One for the ladies, the mighty Valeros

 

 

Plus a dash of gentlemen's relish with the delectable Seoni (soon to become Goblin feed, unfortunately)

As I advanced my characters in power, I also identified what I thought was a loophole in the rules which effectively allows you neverto have to let one of your character die. In brief, during a character's turn, they do not have to do anything other than ensure that they retain their hand to the rquired level. Thus if you are running low on cards, you can choose to do nothing throughout the rest of the scenario, including avoiding potentially lethal combat. You, will, as a consequence, almost certainly lose the scenario, but your character will survive (thus retaining any advances gained through experience, which you lose if you die). You can then reformulate your strategy and re-attempt the failed scenario. However, during my last game, I decided to allow Seoni to search a new location, despite the fact that she had already cycled through most of her deck. My hope being that perhaps a useful item might be acquired. Even in her weakened state, I anticipated that Seoni would still be able to fend off most monsters. Unfortunately, the card I flipped turned out to be the villain of the piece (a goblin warlord). What I had also failed to take into account were various special rules in  place due to the scenario and location card that raised this particular goblin's combat check number by 6, which suddenly made defeating him look improbable. Added to that the fact that all of the combat dice I rolled came up 1s, I was faced with a situation whee not only did Seoni have to discard here entire hand of 7 cards, but she did not have enough cards left in her deck to redraw up to her full complement, and thus became the goblin warlord's dinner. Oh fuck...a loss, I can tell you, that I felt keenly.

After about 8 plays of the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, I can say that this currently stands quite high in my list of favourite solitaire games. Once you have the rules down pat, a typical game takes between 45 mins - 1 hour. The fantasy theme is also something that appeals, as is the ability to typical rpg ability to improve your characters between scenarios (each scenario successfully completed allows the surviving characters to upgrade one of their abilities, or to draw new items). Speed and theme aside, I did feel the game was lacking a little in terms of its narrative engagement - a big plus for me where solitaire games are concerned. The game is rather abstract, and scenarios tend to be very similar (i.e. find and kill the villain). This is definitely a case where I didn't quite feel that the mechanics managed to supported the idea of the game as an light rpg experience. For example, the character deck represents items and abilities that you possess, as well as being a measure of 'hit points'; however, you might have a great axe (a particularly effective weapon for fighters) in your deck, but unless it is in your hand, you cannot play it. In this respect, it seems odd that a character going off adventuring would not have their favoured weapon to hand, and instead await the whims of fortune to be able to use it. To have one's possessions as a marker of hit points also seems a little odd, although i do like how this mechanic is implemented. Also, for an rpg marked by such amazing art - particularly that of Wayne Reynolds - the visual impact of the game felt a little weak. Compare, for instance, a card from Fantasy Flight Games' The Lord of the Rings card game:

 

...as opposed to the rather bland production values of a card from the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game:

 

Even so, the speed of play, its solitaire playability, and the general theme (even if not ideally implemented) go quite some way to making this a cracking little time waster and, if, like me, you're prone to indulging in occasional power-gaming fantasies, the ability to raise your lowly character from the ranks of the base and undeserving to mighty-thewed hero who treads kingdoms beneath his sandalled feet, then this does hit the spot. Whilst not a deeply immersive rpg-like experience, as noted above I did end up investing in my characters over the duration of the campaign. As with last week's offering, the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game will definitely be hitting my gaming table again in the near future.

On the Gaming Self Abuse Scale (tm), this is quicker and more immersive than last week's Witch of Salem. Though retaining some of that game's abstraction and not quite there as a card-based rpg, this is still highly recommended for a quick session of dungeon-crawl self-pleasuring. 8/10.

Pathfinder Imminent!

Just a quick heads up - I've been hard at it furiously knuckle-humping my way through various of the scenarios that make up the Pathfinder Adventure Card game this week, with an overview due over the weekend.

Week 1 (4th - 10th November 2013) - The Witch of Salem (continued)

A note on timings. Whilst this review has been posted on 11th November, I played Witch of Salem during the week of 4th -10th November 2013, so I'm treating that as the first week of my 52 weeks of gaming self-abuse. The next game will be played this week, with hopefully the review posted by 17th November.

Witch of Salem: brave Arkham detectives battle the elder evil you say? Surely this is yet another ludic tribute to the master of cosmic horror, H.P. Lovecraft! Apparently not. For you see, this is based on a number of novels by Wolfgang Hohlbein, a German writer of fantasy and horror tales. Given the fact that HPL receives not a mention in the game, evidently Arkham, Miskatonic University, Deep Ones, the Necronomicon and the varied other elements of the Cthulhu mythos mentioned in Witch of Salem are all Hohlbein's inventions! The title also seems a little misleading, as the game is set in Arkham not Salem (this is somewhat pedantic, as the Witch of Salem - a character in Hohlbein's work - plays a key part in the game). The complete lack of mention of Lovecraft or Cthulhu is odd, though: given the proensity of various game manufacturers to push out Lovecraft/Cthulhu themed products - see for example the expansion for the Smash Up! card game, the amusingly titled The Obligatory Cthulhu Set  -  it is a surprise that these aren't plastered all over the box as a selling point. I can only imagine this may relate to some kind of contractual issue with regard to Mayfair Game's using Hohlbein's 'original' setting.

Such pettiness aside, Witch of Salem has a reputation of being a Eurofied Arkham Horror lite, which may prove to be a positive given how long Arkham Horror takes to play. I've had this game unplayed in my collection now for a couple of years, so it is time to get it to the table.

On opening, we are presented with a sight that is likely to lead to ludic arousal in any Lovecraftian. In brief, the game looks lovely (re: the image of the board from my previous post). The components are all of extremely high quality, beautifully illustrated, and includes quaint Victorian style meeples which act as player markers in the game. The rules are nicely condensed and concise. Thence to the game itself.

Witch of Salem is broken down into rounds during which the players take it in turns to travel to various locations in Arkham, encounter mythos beasties, collect items to help them to defeat the insidious Necron, close dimensional portals, and finally battle Cthulhu, Yog-Sothoth, Nyarlathotep or some other Great Old One. In this they may be occasionally aided by Robert Carver, the eponymous Witch of Salem, whose actions are governed by the game's AI. All the while, they have to ensure that Necron (represented on the board by a token) does not reach the end of the doom track (located along the bottom and left edges of the board). If at any point this happens, the portals to the Outside open and the Great Old Ones return to devour the world. Yay!

At the start of each round, a monster is revealed - these include the usual mythos suspects (shoggoths, deep ones and ghouls), as well as creatures which are presumably unique to Hohlbein's work such as  lava worms (probably supposed to by Chthonians as I think these have been copyrighted by Brian Lumley), Ice Witches and Fire Witches (shades of Derleth here). Counting the numbered locations clockwise, if a space for a monster card is available at a location - and assuming that a monster card of the same type is not already on the board  - said monster is placed on that space. Player's visiting a location where a monster is lurking have to role a die, usually causing them to lose sanity points (a player is removed from the game if these reach zero), lose an item, or push the Necron token a space further along the doom track. Various other game effects - such as event cards (see below) - also advance the doom track. In addition to which, if a monster card is drawn and another copy of the same card is in play, this activates special abilities (usually meaning that players collectively have to discard a specific number of item types, otherwise the Necron counter further advances to the end of the track).

Once the monster card is revealed, players take it in turn to move and take actions. Each player has a deck of cards corresponding to the locations on the board, and to move to a location they must play the relevant card (each player has to move during their turn). Once at a location, they encounter a monster if any is in play at the location, following which they any: attempt to defeat the monster (by having a specific set of items in their possession corresponding to those on the monster card); play an item they already possess (which allows them to complete various of the winning conditions); pick up an item or sigil (used to close portals) at the location if they are able (each player can only carry three items and one sigil at any time). 3 items/sigils are randomly placed at each location at the start of the game, and new ones are placed if all three items at a location have been collected. Picking up an item may have an associated cost (indicated by icons on the board), which again cause players to lose sanity, or move the Necron marker further along the doom track. Players can only move to locations whose cards they still have in hand, otherwise they must move to the Miskatonic University location in order to refresh their location deck.

Once each player has acted, an event card is drawn. This causes an number of effects - both positive and negative - one of which is to move the Witch of Salem clockwise around the board a number of locations. This can be useful to players: if they visit a location containing the Witch of Salem, defeating monsters at that location becomes easier, or it enables a player to regain additional sanity if they are able to play a particular item. Event cards can also move the Necron token further along the doom track, or cause a Great Old One to manifest at the Miskatonic University. This usually puts into play a rule that negatively effects players until the GOO is removed (either by another event card, or players going to Miskatonic University and discarding a number of items specific on the GOO card).

 To win the game, players have to fulfil a number of conditions, which includes closing all of the hidden portals that are on the board. Each location has a space for a portal tile, and at the beginning of the game tiles are randomly chosen and placed face down on these spaces (six in total). The hidden side of the tile reveals whether or not this is a portal. Items allow players to examine the portal tiles of the location they are currently in, and sigils (of the type corresponding to the space upon which the portal tile is placed) allow them to seal the portal (but a player cannot view and seal a portal tile on the same round; nor can they remain at a location, so potentially it can take a single player three rounds to close a portal, assuming they have all of the necessary items and sigils). Players can seal portal tiles without examining them, but if they do so and the tile turns out not to contain a portal, they lose the game and the Great Old One's return to devour the world.

In addition to which, the players also have to reveal the Great Old One lurking in the R'lyeh space off the coast of Arkham (Arkham is a coastal town now?) and located at the top right-hand corner of the board. To do so, they have to work their way through a series of five other Great Old One cards arrayed around the edge of the R'lyeh space until they reveal the sixth and final GOO. In order to do this, they need to collect and play specific items (pages from the Necronomicon) as they travel around the board. If the players fail to reveal all of the GOO cards before the Necron marker reaches a particular point on the doom track (about two thirds along), they loose and the the Great Old Ones return to devour the world.

Once the final Great Old One in R'lyeh has been revealed, players have to travel there (which involves losing sanity), then defeat the outer monstrosity by having in their possession items specified on the final Great Old One card. If they fail to do so, the Great Old Ones return to devour the world.

Each player also has a named character tile which upon which items/sigils are placed once collected, and which also contains a track for marking off sanity lost during gameplay. As mentioned above, players can lose sanity by encountering monsters, collecting items or through event cards. If all of the players are reduced to zero sanity, they loose and the Great Old ones return to...well, you probably get the picture by now.

Given the objectives players have to achieve, and the multiple ways it is possible to lose the game, this makes Witch of Salem pretty challenging. Added to which, this is somewhat unusual as a co-op in that it involves hidden information: players who examine a portal tile are not allowed to tell other players whether it contains a portal or is blank. Unfortunately, this is the one rule that undermines the game's solo playability, especially if you are using more than one character (the game is designed for 2-4 players, so playing with just one character is not recommended). However, given the difficulty of the game, ignoring this rule (which I did) doesn't seem to have much of an effect. Indeed, going by Witch of Salem forums on boardgamegeek, this seems to be common practice amongst enthusiasts of the game. In any case, the two times I played I lost - in the first instance very badly, although in the second time I came relatively close to winning.

Overall, I found this to be a quick and light - but nonetheless challenging  - take on Arkham Horror, so no points for originality there. That said, whilst Arkham Horror is one of my all-time favourite games (especially in solitaire mode), it hardly ever hits my gaming table given the game's significantly large footprint and the time it takes to play (I've never managed to see to completion in under four hours). As a consequence, Witch of Salem is a reasonably good go-to game for a more condensed Arkham Horror experience. That said, whilst beautifully produced , Witch of Salem (as its Euro roots attest) is a very abstract game that lacks the naarative flavour of Arkham Horror: in Arkham Horror, each character has unique abilities and characteristics, whilst in Witch of Salem each character is identical; in Arkham Horror, travelling to a location can result in varied events which push the narrative of the game forward, whereas visiting locations in Witch of Salem leads to a very limited number of (usually) predictable possibilities. On the plus side, Witch of Salem does as good a job as Arkham Horror of ratcheting up the tension as the Necron marker is moved inevitably towards the endspace.

In summary, this game looks beautiful, plays well solitaire (although this requires a minor rules modification) in about 80-90 minutes, has a reasonably easy rules set (4 pages) and offers a nice, light alternative to the grandaddy of Lovecraftian boardgames, Arkham Horror. Despite the lack of narrative engagement (not to mention the failure to mention Lovecraft anywhere in the game), this is something that I will almost certainly play again for that always desireable quick fix of Lovecraftian gaming self-love.

On the Gaming Self-Abuse Scale (tm), this clocks in at: 7.5/10

Next up: a new acquisition - The Pathfinder Adventure Card Game: Rise of the Runelords.

The Gaming Onanist Week 1 (4th - 10th November 2013) - Introduction and The Witch of Salem

The Gaming Onanist is my attempt over the next 52 weeks to document my experiments in ludic self-pleasure as I attempt to get as many of the unplayed (or rarely played) solitaire or co-operative games I currently own on to the table. Whilst  I am fortunate enough to be able to participate in a regular weekly gaming group, sometimes once a week is not just enough...

In any case, each week I will be choosing one tabletop game and offering a brief review/gaming session report. Additionally (and time permitting), I may also offer ruminations on contemporary tabletop gaming culture in its various forms.  In the next few days, also expect a speculative list of some of the many games I hope to play. This will most likely include varied genres, including: many contemporary boardgames  (of both the Euro and Ameritrash variety  -  though mostly of the Ameritrash variety); various card-based games; hex-and-counter wargames; possible some miniature gaming; and maybe even the occasional attempt at solitairy roleplaying. Ooh err...

Bad double entendres aside (or perhaps not), in the spirit of the season (it being just over a week since Hallowe'en) - my first offering will be Mayfair Games' The Witch of Salem, in whose delightful company I've frolicked twice today. Sadly, now being in a state of dissolute and detumescent dissipation subsequent to my exertions, the review will have to wait until tomorrow. In the interim, here's some high quality gaming porn of The Witch of Salem board with which to tease you: